Hey all! Now I know that the Gallery guidelines that were placed a couple of months ago, may have seemed to some a bit extreme. As I had stated before, this was to discourage the many images that were MOSTLY 3D/etc. compositions, and BARELY fractal. It was also a result of a forum discussion, and the many IM's I received on it. However, there are now questions raised about non-fractal imports into fractal programs, and vice-versa. So...I'm asking for your opinions. Ultimately, this IS a Fractal Gallery, but...where do we draw the line, yet again? Any suggestions would be much appreciated :) Thanks, Nick

Pandora's Box.

lol define a fractal please smile

Does the rendering engine or the content determine the gallery? When Xenodream is able to export 3D objects in the next version (hopefully) and that is rendered in Bryce, where does it belong? The flip side is that I can create an image in Ultral Fractal that has no repeating elements. Does the Fractal Gallery need to expand to include "Mathematical" art, whatever that is?

I'd like to have "Mathematical Art" included. Many many UF images are no fractals because they miss the self-similarity or other fractal qualities...

I think that anything that could be done with fractals should get the chance to be posted in the fractal gallery. It's not important if the final image was created in a fractal program or composed in photoshoppsp.It shows the beauty of fractals and what could be achieved with fractals or fractal programs. In cases where you come in a grey area [fractal or mixed medium] It should be left to the creator to decide if he wants to share in mixed medium or the fractal gallery. heshe created something that did not exist before and now we are going to tell himher where it belongs. You don't know his thougts when creating the image and you don't know what he was aiming for yet you are telling him what the focal point is.I would say leave things as they are and in the grey area leave it to the creator,the important thing is sharing something beautiful and where heshe wants to share it...well.

exactly Brian smile

Then we are exactly back to where we were before.

I think the fractal gallery should include mathematical art in addition to fractal stuff. I think "bring it in" images are fine here if they contain a fractal or mathematical element. That said, I also don't think that images being in the wrong gallery is that big of a deal in the first place.

I agree completely with Jock.

See what happens when you open pandora's box. The gallery is going to go back to the way it was before the rules were changed.

well actually ya made up some rules, and so you should stick to it ... and treat everyone the same, which ya don't ... as i recall it correctly, you moved my design called 'emptiness' even though it was all a fractal, to the mixed medium gallery, because what you saw as the focal point was text ... now there is someone in the fractal gallery who uploaded a design titled 'initials' and then you don't move that to the mixed gallery even though the focal point according to your rules is text where do YOU draw the line, we all are fractal artists and feel we belong in here, even when we ad something else other than fractals to our designs if you take a look at the poser gallery, they don't move those designs to the mixed gallery one, even though other programs than poser alone are being used then you write out a contest called fractal magic, and you accept mixed media designs to it as well, how do your rules work then??? so either you stick to it, or acknowledge this was all a big mistake... but if you stick to it, make rules which are understandable, not just write a few lines, and when someone wants to discuss it, withdraw by saying, read this and that at the following addies, then lose it, and say: these are the rules, so it's over and done with from the artists point of view, you are absolutely wrong, Nick, we are the ones who set the focal point, not you...

I have a problem with calling a digital image "multimedia" because it contains elements from different software. If a Vue or Bryce image contains a Poser figure is it still not primarily a Vue or Bryce image? All software output is digital and mixing the output of different wares does not make it multimedia. Using a digital image as part of a collage of acrylics, cloth, bark etcetera; yes that is multimedia. Trying to change the traditional definition of the word as it applies artistically I think wrong. Perhaps a new term is applicable here; does "multidigital" ring any bells? As to what comprises a "fractal" image, one that is primarily fractal in theme! My two stivers worth. Mike

I think that the guidelines should stand as they are but they should also be recognized guidelines, not rules. Most of us are conscientious enough to do the right thing. We should be the ones to decide where our images belong. It shouldn't be up to someone else to decide what goes where. Keep the guidelines but let us do our own policing. Keith

Pandora's box? Yes, I knew this would get ugly...

I started this thread because of the recent questions raised.

Barbara and I thought we had the perfect solution with the idea of 'focal point' in deciding what should stay and what should go. Now, mind you, the guidelines were put in place because of member concerns over 3D/etc. in the Fractal gallery. I repeat this because it was artist's complaints that demanded a change...not us. We try to do the best we can, and we try to be fair. We are not on a 'power trip', nor do we care to be popular. We are doing our job the best we can.

Basically, I have to admit, we hit a wall. What do we do in cases of the 'Bring it in' UF thing, and the XD/3D output cases? I can't say...I'm just not sure anymore. We are not perfect...far from it. We do not have all the answers...if we did, we would have no problems and aLOT more free time. Further, I have seen images produced by fractal programs lately that just do not seem to be fractal to me. So, the best way, IMO, was to open the discussion again.

We really don't want to see a free-for-all in the Fractal gallery, as it was turning out to be before. But, we do have to address the recent questions, and this is the best way we can...by asking for opinions of the Fractal artists that post here.

Whether we are liked or not, is not our concern. We are only concerned with the forward advancement of the Fractal Community.

So...What do you want to see? Let's get to a conclusion on this, please.

Thanks,

Nick and Barbara

And to Harmen-
I still stand by my decision to move your 'emptiness' image according to the current guidelines. Honestly, though, some sites will delete an image without even notifying the artist. I only 'moved' your image, and sent you an IM to notify you. That was very fair.
Also, I have said before that some images may be missed, and to let us know if there is an image that does not comply with the guidelines. Again, we are not perfect, and things can be missed.

As for the Magic contest-
Once a contest is active, the rules cannot be modified. So, yes, it was my mistake that I did not clearly explain what was allowed. So, even 'mixed medium' types must also be approved.

In answer to your question Nick perhaps UF and Xenodream shouldn't be in the fractal gallery and should have their own galleries? It becomes a fine line to decide that an image doesn't belong somewhere because it uses or is capable of using an add-on piece of software designed for it. UltraFractal doesn't create pure fractals but it is sold as a Fractal Generator so I don't see how you can get around the issue of using Bring-it-in. We have a unique problem in our gallery as it seems most Renderosity galleries are software based (Vue, Poser, Bryce etc) they don't have these issues we have. Perhaps some of our fractal software not longer fits the 'Fractal' criteria and deserving of standing alone? Just a thought :-)

It doesn't really matter to me. I'm content to go with "majority rules." However, it does seem to me that bashing the coordinators of this forum is counter-productive. They're between a rock and a hard place, as all moderators/coordinators are when trying to find a happy medium on an issue where the outcome is only going to please a minority. Too many "non-fractal" type images brought complaints. Too many "rules" brought different complaints. New rules will bring new complaints. There is no easy solution, so why not give Nick and Barbara the benefit of the doubt and recognize that they are trying to find the best possible solution. It's not an easy job, as this thread shows. :) Cia

I want to see fractals and fractal like images. That means anything made with xenodream and fractal-like artrage images. What I don't want to see is poser mixes, tons of plug-ins, filters, tubes, and other postworked to death gimmicks. We are all supposed to be mastering our software and techniques, so why all the extra postworking to make an image? Yeah, I know, separate arguement, but that's what started this whole pandora's box in the first place. ;) There will never be separate galleries for certain fractal generators because the ownership of this site doesn't care enough to improve the html. If they ever restructure the galleries (yeah, right), then they need to get rid of the software related galleries all together. What this place needs is a fractal gallery, abstract gallery, digital landscape gallery, 3D digital art gallery..... Instead of argueing whether it's a fractal or not, why not just say it's a certain type of artform and post it that way and forever end this stupid arguement about it.

Confining my thoughts to the status quo for the moment... UF and XD in particular include non-fractal shapes, but they are mathematical not hand-drawn or imported, and many people aren't sure which is which anyway, so it makes sense to post them here unless the artist wants to put them in 2D, 3D or whatever. UF with Bringitin or XD with picture mapping are typically doing texture mapping onto a fractal shape or formula, so in most cases it's sensible to post here. But for example if you just map a photo onto a cube I don't think many would really want to see it in this gallery. Yes, the time is fast approaching when the XD release version will export 3D meshes. My opinion is that they will generally belong in the appropriate other galleries such as Bryce unless they feature obvious fractal structures. However, meshes are not ideal for high resolution fractals so that will likely be a minority of such renders. Regards, Garth

I think Garth's point about exported 3D meshes in Bryce is valid. As devil's advocate, do XD images without obvious fractal structures belong in the fractal gallery? I would prefer to see them here, but would that be following current guidelines? Do Celtic knots from UF belong here? Do lkmitch's great images belong here? I think that they do belong here. That broadens the concept of this gallery to include mathematical art.
I would like a clear ruling on this point.
Even more specifically, I would like to know if KnotPlot objects rendered in Bryce could be posted here.
One other point, some of the procedural textures in Bryce have an uncanny resemblance to the SFBM ucl textures.

Message edited on: 10/05/2004 03:37

lol as you said: this is a FRACTAL gallery ... so even in a FRACTAL [magic] contest, mixed media images aren't allowed!!!

Grab a dictionary and look up the word fractal. You'll be surprised at the answer, it's not what you think it is, at least not the way Mandelbrot defined it back in 1975.

yup i know, Jef ... but thing is, this mod made rules for this fractal gallery and tries to get away with it with a contest ... he speaks in contradictions and has no idea what he is talking about ... also treats everyone differently here, moves images around whenever he seems to have time for without negotiating first or when he has the mood for it, and when ya speak out your opinion about it, he treats ya like a kid or trashes yer opinion or warns ya ... and i don't care if you ban me for this, Nick...

WOW! Lots of opinions. I'm glad I'm not in the shoes of our two moderators. This is a hard call. I'll just go along with the general consensus and final rules. If my images get moved, so be it. Seems that as software gets more and more sophisticated, it will be even more difficult to decide where images belong. Marion

"but thing is, this mod made rules for this fractal gallery and tries to get away with it with a contest " If you're still referring to the Fractal Magic contest, you can quit blaming Nick for that one. My company is sponsoring the contest. I'm the one who brought the idea to Nick and Barbara because I wanted to do something for the generous people of this community. If you want to do any bashing on the contest, I'm your gal. :) Cia

Personally, I'm happy with the gallery no matter what rule changes. I enjoy looking around to see what can be accomplished and the different styles. Though a bit confused though by the rules (could be the ditzy in me) and they leave a few grey areas. Such as bring-it-in, xenodream mapping and 3-d issues. I even looked up the definition of fractal and checked the 'what is a fractal' on the main page. I'm suprised to see a few of mine don't even qualify as 'fractals'. I like to construct things in UF, so they don't normally repeat or look like the typical fractal. So how do you decide? I'll put my images wherever they need to go, just hope I understand where that is, lol. Man, do I feel for Nick and Barbara trying to figure this out! Such a fine line and so many varied opinions. Someone will be unhappy no matter what the rules are. Good luck you two :)!

oh look, thats not the point ... point is that if ya have a fractal gallery the mod made up rules for whether something is a fractal or not, and in his eyes non-fractal images should be moved to another gallery or not, and then when ya accept mixed media images in a fractal contest for the fractal community, you should say, they aren't accepted as well... hope you read that in previous messages :-)) as i remember correctly, in a previous contest, some time ago, some design wasn't accepted either, because of that...

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=569309

I think it falls somewhere within the realm of celtic knots, kaleidoscopes, XD and spirograph.

I will try posting an image and see what happens.

I will abide by the decisions of the moderators.

Harmen- Apparently YOU didn't read what I said previously: "Once a contest is active, the rules cannot be modified. So, yes, it was my mistake that I did not clearly explain what was allowed. So, even 'mixed medium' types must also be approved." That means that I have to accept images that may be 'Mixed Medium'...since it IS a Fractal contest, as long as Fractals are a part of the composition, I have to accept it. I mistakenly left out the 'focus' part. I admitted it was my mistake... And further...you keep saying "The Mod made rules..." The rules came about because of complaints....I did not just do it for the hell of it. So, now it's open for discussion again...how about some constructive feedback, please. Nick

ZZZzzz Not constructive but it sums up how I feel about this subject perfectly. Matt.

Hi All, looks like you're all doing well. :) and I hope you truly are! Sorry to add to this fray, but I can't sit and lurk any longer on this topic. Simply, I miss not seeing artists like Longrider when I cruise the fractal gallery. It would be a delight to see some of Little Red's work gracing our community again. Searching for an "fractal" artist whose style I remember but whose name I do not is now impossible as so many images are going outside the fractal gallery. Learning from our wonderful fractal artists happens in this forum more than any other place. Mixed Media does not have a forum and if it did, there are so many other art types that "fractal" imaging conversations would not work as well as they do here. I can remember and thoroughly enjoyed old discussions on how art "mixtures" were created. How a fractal was pulled into bryce and caused a simple 3D image to become magnificent. Vclaszlo, Dreamwarrior, I feel for you both. This is going to be one tough decision. A decision that you can either bear the brunt of for many moons to come or one you can put to a vote and let each one of us deal with our own feelings on the subject. If it does come to a vote then please consider these definitions within our perceptions of "Fractal Art": Artist: A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty Fractal: Many mathematical structures are fractals; e.g. Sierpinski triangle, Koch snowflake, Peano curve, Mandelbrot set and Lorenz attractor. Fractals also describe many real-world objects that do not have simple geometric shapes, such as clouds, mountains, turbulence, and coastlines. I know these discussions are sometimes upsetting but on the postive side we see each others opinions and reasonings (if we're lucky) and are thereby given an opportunity to grow within our understandings and even possibly our art just a little bit more. Well, am going back to lurking for a wee bit :) wave to me now and again!!

I personally would like to see the "other" style images in the gallery again. Simply for the inspirational aspect. You know, "wow, great idea. Wonder how they did that?" And you go to work trying to figure it out. Along the way you learn so much. This problem will never be completely solved. Once new rules are made, new routes around them will be created. I'm just glad I'm not the ones having to make this decision! Old rules, same rules, or new rules, we'll go along with the majority on this issue. William

First of all, thank you for your support. This IS a tough call and the truth is, it could be a neverending discussion. We all know that. Keith, you said: "We should be the ones to decide where our images belong. It shouldn't be up to someone else to decide what goes where. Keep the guidelines but let us do our own policing." I just want you all to understand our position. If we did that, and all members, after reading the "suggested" guidelines decided their images belong in the fractal gallery anyway... What would be the point? We would be back to where all started, the gallery would be full of those images people complained about in the first place. We cannot "suggest" rules and not enforce them. We either place rules or we don't. With that said, if the general concensus is the guidelines should be revised, no problem. We are not here to make your lives difficult... only ours, lol :))) But, I think we should think about two things seriously: - We cannot change the rules or guidelines or whatever everytime someone comes up and says they don't like them. - Once we reach a decision, we have to assume our part in it and accept its outcome. Would you like to open this for voting? No problem. We truly want the best for our fractaland :) Barbara

As long as nobody defines what a fractal is we will never have a successful decision.

• When I create a red square on a black background with UF, then this definitely NO fractal.
• When I create a very nice geometric design with UF - again, no fractal but an algorithmically created image content.
• When I zoom into the outer regions of a Julia set and leave the fractal borders and spirals - again no fractal is seen there.
  The outsides of a Mandelbrot set or a Julia set behave like a pixel formula - one iteration then the calculation is bailing out...
• A spiral made by a trap colouring often looses self-similarity and scale invariance, because you can zoom into a branch part and do not see infinite repetition of patterns any longer - even such a spiral might be no fractal.

So far this kind of images is allowed in this gallery. I LOVE to see images generated with fractal generators. I seldom visit the Mixed Media gallery. I do not mind KPT Materializer or effects from Painter on fractals. Images from UF or other generators are my interest. I'd like to see them in one place, not in ten. I like to be inspired - not only by infinite spirals but also by Gnarls (often no fractals either!).
So IMHO we should concentrate on the software and not on the results only. Andreas

Message edited on: 10/06/2004 02:28

I've read all these responses again.

So, I am wondering if the only way to solve this is to decide that the only images that can be in the fractal gallery are ones that come directly out of a fractal program with no postwork of any kind/type added; not even frames, sharpening, color enhancement, lighting enhancement, or layering several images together to make a new image, etc.
All images using another graphic program must be in Mixed Medium. Seems that there would be no further debate about where images belong.

Another thought: I believe most of us use these other graphic programs to enhance our fractals. So maybe we could all make a mass exodus out of the fractal gallery and into the mixed medium gallery and then we could all be in one place again. Marion

Message edited on: 10/06/2004 09:48

Yay for Marion. That's a bit harsh, but shouldn't we all be trying to master our generators, instead of leaning on postwork to cover our short comings? How many people approach the creation process with that much intent, or instead stop midway because they know of X amount of postwork tricks that will yield a good image? We all want to help each other, but how do you help someone that cannot afford photoshop or paint shop pro when that's what you lean on to create your artwork? When you started learning fractals, did you want to learn from the people that have mastered the software, or the ones that just get by and use postwork to make their images? That's another thought that people overlook here, and that's why I'm adament on no postworking of my artwork (frames/fonts only, for print reasons).

So, the idea is to become a fractal master? That's where i've been going wrong! I better quit Jedi school and enrol in the tight arse academy of fractal snobbery... If I want to make a UF image, I will. If I want to make an Apophysis image, I will. If I want to make a Xenodream image, I will and if I want to make a Photoshop image, I will. If I want to make a UF image and then rape the shit out of it in Photoshop, I will. Anyone that doesn't like it, doesn't have to look at it. Matt. (My interest has suddenly rekindled).

Is it postwork if you are using a newer version of software with more features? Those added features are postwork to someone that has not upgraded yet. I do understand the artistic and intellectual challenge of limiting yourself to a certain set of tools but software's capabilities are a moving target. What is currently postwork may not be with the next version upgrade. Ultra Fractal did not always have the features of the current version. I guess we would need separate galleries for each software upgrade (not!).

Yay, Matt, thanks for avoiding the points I made, that's okay, everyone else does also.

I thought I did...I'll try again. The truth is that there are a lot of people that just aren't proficient enough in their chosen fractal generator to make what they want and probably never will be. Whether it's a lack of time, patience, savvy or any other reason. Post-work balances the equation so they can put their vision on the screen. As far as i'm concerned as soon as you add a signature to an image you have post-worked it, unless you add it inside a fractal generator. Saving an image in one format and then converting it in an image editing software is also post-work. Putting a frame on an image in an image editing software is yet again post-work. So to say you are adamant on NO post-working is folly because you clearly are post-working. Trying to figure out a limit for post-work and laying down a set of rules is pointless because people view it from different perspectives. As far as i'm concerned if you used a fractal generator in the process of making an image then it deserves to be in the Fractal Gallery...Anything else is just a waste of my time. If people want to post fractals with poser figures or anything else in them then they are welcome to...If I or anyone else doesn't want to see them then they just don't have to look at them... Moving them from gallery to gallery is pointless. It takes the same amount of bandwidth wherever it is placed and just makes more work for people. If there's a fractal in it...It belongs here! Matt.

The box is open. I think it would help to address specific questions. 1. Do images created from UCLs generated by BringItIn and other image importers (BringItIn isn't the only one) belong in the fractal gallery? 2. Do all XD images belong in the fractal gallery? If not, where should they go?

1. Yes 2. Yes (Going back in my box).

Oh, please no post processing discussion again!

I agree. The post processing discussion is a dead end. I don't consider BringItIn to be a post processing issue

I already addressed framing and fontwork in an earlier comment, but if you want to overlook that and call that post working, then by your definition I'm guilty. Problem is, that's not what this thread is about. Nobody has problems with an artist signing the name of the art and their own name on the image. The topic of this thread is all the plugins, add-ins, and filters that are posted onto the image after rendered, or bring it in process in UF. Let's stick to the issues, please. The other thing about this thread that I find mind boggling is the decision that is going to be made affects the entire gallery, but people are not getting involved, or write "Zzzzzz" until I play devils advocate and ruffle feathers. Everyone that posts images here should be weighing in on this thread, but there's only silence from the bulk of them. They don't want to post their comments, that's fine, but let no complaints be heard from them when the dust settles. If the rule is made to allow any type of postworked image, then that's the way it's going to be. I have no problem living with that, because it's a wise decision to obey the rules of the site. Rebellion gets you nowhere. All I'm doing is throwing my viewpoint into the decision so that all sides can be looked at. Btw, you consider it postwork changing a png to a jpeg because the site doesn't allow png's? That's really interesting.

Don't be too serious...

I was happy with this gallery before someone became unhappy with fractal/poser mixes. I could accept this kind of images even if I never would create such images. I do not know how many complained about the mix. And I would like to know the number of fractal artists here. Perhaps we all (or nearly all) were happy without the strict guidelines (are guidelines rules and laws? Or only helpers for decisions?). I would like to keep the freedom we had before...

Andreas

To Keith/Deagol: 1. Yes, 2. Yes, I even would not mind Fractals from Artmatic or Bryce.

The topic of this thread is all the plugins, add-ins, and filters that are posted onto the image after rendered, or bring it in process in UF. Let's stick to the issues, please. I disagree that this thread is about filters and plugins...the way I read it it's about objects other than fractals being added in fractal compositions. If you have a landscape made out of different fractals and a poser figure dancing in the center of it the poser figure is what the image is about with the fractals just used as background....and if that landscape is made in UF using 5 layers of different fractals it's just as postworked as 5 layers of different fractals put together in PS. I don't think anyone has the right to tell me (or anyone else) that my work isn't as valid or artistic as theirs is because I use filters for different effects. I think an anonymous vote by the artists that post their work here is a perfect solution (some people are uncomfortable voicing their opinion). That way majority rules and not just a few that complain the loudest and Nick and Barbara can stop taking flak about being the ones who instituted the 'guidelines'. I happen to think it should all be posted here. So that's my weigh in...;o)

I agree with valcali. Let's vote. Valid votees are those that have more than three (?) images in this gallery...

Or is it voters???

I'll go along with that. Voters...Votees receive votes don't they?

Message edited on: 10/06/2004 14:57